AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
